Of course there are Anglicans who would espouse Serge's views which is what makes Anglicanism so confusing to me: some Anglicans believe like you, Keble, while others believe in Serge's Eucharistic views, and still others don't even believe in God at all (like Spong). I'm not trying to attack your Church, but merely am offering a sincere observation that has troubled me personally in the past.

Trying to pin down a definitive Anglican position is an exercise in futility (not to mention frustration), but Spong's positions and approach shouldn't be taken to be Anglican simply because he is a bishop. And furthermore, I don't think he himself considered them to be specifically Anglican either. If Tillich and Bultmann are the only theologians you are heeding, then you are way outside the Anglican mainstream. Tillich is purported to have referred to the incarnation at one point as "the Anglican heresy" (though I've never been able to find a definite citation for this), and Spong is most certainly a follower of Tillich.

As for Bennison: he has achieved a certain notoriety for his battles wih his more traditionalist parishes. I haven't followed his theological pronouncements that much (he isn't as good at notorietypublicity as Spong is), but his Easer address in the diocesan newsletter has attracted a lot of heat for seeming to suggest that Jesus did in fact sin. He has since tried to dig himself back out of this hole (not entirely convincingly, from what I've seen-- I've been to busy to follow every detail of this), and has been roundly criticized for saying it. I would venture to guess that an Orthodox bishop who said what Benison said would be promptly quashed by his metropolitan. Our presiding bishop doesn't have that kind of power (and unfortunately the current PB prefers for the most part to make vague pronouncements that leave everyone wondering why he bothered to say anything), and the lack of will in the House of Bishops to deal with these matters is, well, a big problem.

It's quite clear that Anglicanism will, sooner or later, have to deal with the issue of theological discipline. At the moment, it looks as if it will be later; the current trend is to set some of the most contentious issues aside.

Trying to pin down a definitive Anglican position is an exercise in futility

Which is why as a standalone system Anglicanism is useless. Classical Anglicanism picked an arbitrary standard acceptable to the government and proceeded to pick and choose (eresein, heresein) beliefs, some from Catholicity/Orthodoxy/the Fathers, others from the Protestant heretics, while remaining Christian. Anglo-Catholicism simply chucks Anglicanism as a belief system and copies Catholicism (thought it believed it alone truly understood Anglicanism and the majority were wrong - which is why, having discarded Anglicanism as it is commonly understood, they didn't simply convert like Newman did). Evangelicalism is a retread of continental classical Protestantism. And Broad Churchmanship ultimately is carried by the winds of the secular world as its magisterium.

Bishops one ignores as a matter of course = a claim to apostolic ministry that doesn't really mean anything. Useless.

Quote

from what you've written about Anglicanism, sadly, it's hard to see that it's that far apart from Unitarianism/Universalism

By George, you've got it! Though to be fair, classical Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholicism and Evangelical Anglicanism are definitely Christian, not Unitarian. But in practice today, with Spong, Bennison and Griswold in its communion in good standing (Matthew Fox too), you're absolutely right.

Keble, from what you've written about Anglicanism, sadly, it's hard to see that it's that far apart from Unitarianism/Universalism.

I worry about the direction of Anglicanism in general, but let's not forget that it wasn't more than a hundred years ago that Orthodox Churches were having talks regardint union with the Anglicans. I also had the pleasure of talking with a couple bright, young, Anglicans when I was frequenting the chat rooms on Paltalk, and they seemed very conservative (without actually leaving the Anglican body as a whole), and very interested in history, patristics, etc., not just for scholarship's sake, but for actual practical application.

Anecdote: Pope Pius IX is said to have remarked to an English visitor, 'Your Pusey [an Oxford Movement founder like John Keble] - he's-a like-a the campanile, calling the people into the Church-a, but he stays outside-a.'

I have a book from the 1890s called Russia and the English Church, by William Birkbeck (who converted from the Church of England to Eastern Orthodoxy), about Oxford Movement (Anglo-Catholic) High Churchman William Palmer's journey from the C of E to Roman Catholicism. He wanted to be Eastern Orthodox but was put off when the Russian Church offered to chrismate him but the Greeks said no, it had to be baptism. The book is mostly a compilation of letters between Palmer and Alexis Khomiakov, with some more writings by K. as well.

Dialogue between members of the two churches dates back to the High Church Non-Jurors, but they balked at a Church they considered too Catholic - couldn't abide the use of icons or Mariology. (The same reason the Anglican bishop of London, Compton, ordered a Greek church in the city shut down in the 1600s - it was 'popish'.)

But I think contact really began around 100 years ago and was largely with Anglo-Catholics, which gave the Orthodox, otherwise unfamiliar with Anglicanism (also true to this day of many European Catholics), a skewed picture of what Anglicanism really is. IOW, because of the impression given them by Anglo-Catholics, they thought Anglicanism as a whole is much closer to them than it really was/is. (Classical Anglicanism, with episcopacy, basic credal orthodoxy and its interest in the Church Fathers, really is closer to Orthodoxy than the Broad Churchmen in charge of Anglicanism today.) But the Orthodox answer always remained, 'You like us? You agree with us? Wonderful - then convert!' (The same as Catholicism's response to Anglo-Catholics.)

The Anglicans in these dialogues routinely misunderstood Orthodox statements about them (such as about their claim to orders): 'They recognize us as valid! So there!'. But as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) points out, the Orthodox view was really what a Romanian newspaper in the 1920s or 1930s reported: 'How wonderful! These Anglican Protestants are interested in converting to the true faith.'

Spong doesn't represent Anglicanism as a whole or historical-mainstream classical Anglican belief, but neither do the people in Anglicanism who hold most or all of their opinions in common with apostolicity/Catholicity/Orthodoxy. (There is a spiritual difference between being in the Church and being outside it while holding your opinions in common with it, but sincere Anglo-Catholics thought/think they were/are already in the Church.) Something I think the Orthodox involved in ecumenical activity, and most Orthodox hierarchs, now know well, since the prominent Anglo-American churches in the Anglican Communion are firmly under the control of Broad Churchmen, who can hardly be called Christian anymore and have lady clergy and gay marriages.

If one accepts the Apostolic Tradition, then why not make a decision to become Orthodox or (failing that) Roman Catholic?

If one is Evangelical, why not choose an authentically Evangelical Protestant church?

Why remain in a church that seems to make a specialty of accepting everything and nothing?

Exactly. There really is no reason anymore, since the English (now the British) monarch no longer forces people to belong. (I think only about 30% of English people are members, and of these most don't go to church.)

Quote

I really want to know what motivates someone to become and/or to remain an Anglican.

I think some sincere Protestants go there as they move apostolicwards. Some stay; more often now ISTM it's a changing station for the Catholic (the commonest destination) or, less often but seen a little more now, the Orthodox Church. In America, a vocal online minority are ex-Catholics who move there for the same reasons some Catholics become vagantes - they're gay or want to do something else sexual that the apostolic faith won't allow them to. (Interesting for hysterical raisins - compugeek joke - considering sex is usually given as the reason for the Henrician schism that started the whole mess.) A born Eastern Orthodox or two ends up there owing to marriage (a common reason for religious change, of dubious sincerity*) or, as in a couple of cases of people I've met, they were only nominal Orthodox, growing up in nonchurchgoing families, so they were functionally unchurched, and the local Episcopal church was where they happened to learn about God.

*I don't know Tom Hanks and can't presume to speak for him but considering he helped make the movie, I have a sinking feeling his attitude to Eastern Orthodoxy mirrors the flippant, blasphemous one of Ian the fianc+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ in My Big Fat Greek Wedding - 'OK, I guess I'm Greek now, so is it OK for us to get married?'

In relatively recent American history, Spiro Agnew's father was a marriage convert from the Orthodox Church to the Episcopal Church; Mr Agnew was a born Episcopalian.

If one accepts the Apostolic Tradition, then why not make a decision to become Orthodox or (failing that) Roman Catholic?

Maybe if you accept it as inarguable, utter truth, and you belive that it is being conveyed to you accurately, and you accept that faith is just a matter of accepting certain propositions (and the last time I checked, that was a Protestant theory anyway). And then there is the issue of accepting in this manner the Orthodox version or the Catholic version, or for that matter, the Old Calendarist version or the Old Believer version-- or for that matter, the Amish version.....

But if you encountered Christ in a different tradition, of what use would all these propositions be? Wouldn't that tend to cast doubt on the absolute character of the claims made in the names of Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

The utmost danger of relying upon a purely propositional case for Christ (besides the problem that it is impossible to defend an empirical assertion that way-- and there is nothing more empirical than the statement that Christ rose from the dead) is that you are susceptible to being swayed not by what is true, but by what is better argued.

We seem to be having, in particular, a problem with the absolute nature of the claims being made for Orthodoxy. It is clearly possible for me to assent to some of what is taught in the name of Orthodoxy, without assenting to all of it. It is clear, because that is in fact what I do.

I think in your own case, Linus, there is a severe dissonance between your condemnations of individuals judging for themselves, and your seeming endorsement of intellectual assent. Such assent is none other than the very judgement you have condemned.

Maybe if you accept it as inarguable, utter truth, and you belive that it is being conveyed to you accurately

Gee, 'Keble', you mean like those dumb hicks, the Church Fathers, who brought you the Bible? Oh, that's right, your church thinks it can change the Bible, too, so the Fathers are pretty much disposable.

Quote

But if you encountered Christ in a different tradition, of what use would all these propositions be? Wouldn't that tend to cast doubt on the absolute character of the claims made in the names of Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Catholicism would call that invincible ignorance and gives the i.i. the benefit of the doubt. If you try to do right, Christ will be waiting for you. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't really judge people born outside it either.

Quote

We seem to be having, in particular, a problem with the absolute nature of the claims being made for Orthodoxy. It is clearly possible for me to assent to some of what is taught in the name of Orthodoxy, without assenting to all of it. It is clear, because that is in fact what I do.

Obviously you don't, which would be fine here except you seem less interested in listening to Eastern Orthodox and Catholics than you are in making fun of their beliefs. Isn't there some Broad Church Anglican board you can go to instead?

Quote

I think in your own case, Linus, there is a severe dissonance between your condemnations of individuals judging for themselves, and your seeming endorsement of intellectual assent. Such assent is none other than the very judgement you have condemned.

'We carry in our hearts the true country and that cannot be stolen' sang Midnight Oil 15 years ago - an example of 'a stopped clock is right twice a day'. A more conventional way of putting it might be that the natural law and the law of God are written on the heart of every man and any decision that moves toward that objective truth is good. So a move apostolicwards isn't Protestant private judgement away from the truth but is a submission to the truth.

Linus:

Quote

I think you know that the process of debunking another's posts is a lot easier than actually answering the question I asked.

Quite right, old chap - he never really answers our objections to Anglicanism; he just snipes at our beliefs instead.

Quite right, old chap - he never really answers our objections to Anglicanism; he just snipes at our beliefs instead.

First of all, Serge, there aren't enough hours in the day for me to object to every last remark you make-- and when it comes to having to argue with you and Linus at the same time, well, I have a job to hold down, and a family to support....

Second, again you are putting rude speech into my mouth. "Hicks" is your word, not mine.

I do not intend to snipe at Orthodoxy's beliefs; presenting a contrast by way of an Anglican viewpoint shouldn't be construed as me throwing down a gauntlet for yet another theological fight to the death. I dofind it irritating that every time I say something, it seems necessary to mount a full-scale assault on it. And it is giving me major problems in believing what I am being told here about Orthodoxy, because I continually get the sense that people are taking up positions in order to oppose me (as a Protestant/Anglican), rather than because these positions represent a position well-accepted in Orthodoxy and representative of its core tenets. Elsewhere I have been in an argument on the same subject-- twice-- where Orthodox people have been willing to argue against the sense of conciliar canons (not to mention the very scripture cited in these canons) so that they could oppose me. If Anglicans are prone seeing things as excessively akin, Orthodox seem to me to be prone towards the overreaction of seeing things as excessively unlike.

The whole progress of the "trans/cons" topic illustrates this. True Thomian transsubstantiation is very much a minority position in the Episcopal Church, and a lot of the people I have heard use the word really meant it in the more general sense of any kind of change of the elements into the Body and Blood, without any reference to the language "accidents" and "substance". I have never heard a modern Episcopalian express a strictly memorialist position (not counting radio preachers, the last time I was directly exposed to this was back when I was a Presbyterian), and most of the modern theologians I've read have tended not to take "real presence" as strong enough. Almost to a man they view the Thomian theory as a kind of intellectual stunt that doesn't sit well in the mouths of people are not not ordinarily Aristotleans.

Dragging out the dead isn't going to help. Reassessment is Anglican; demanding that everything past be taken as dogma is not. Orthodoxy does apply a review process to the church fathers too-- Cyprian is well-liked, Augustine is not, and then there's things that Origen said-- but in Anglicanism the process continues. People do go astray, and they do in Orthodoxy too, only they either were put into schism, or became unchurched, or (in more modern times) went over to the competition. As a layman this puts me into situations where I cannot make ideal choices. I cannot do more to Spong and stay in my church than try to rebut him, and pray, and refuse his sacraments. I do these things already (or did, back when he wasn't retired). My power over loose cannon priests is similarly limited (I'm not on the vestry, for one thing).

Bailing out of the Episcopal Church altogether is just as problematic. Churches that aren't Anglican won't do, and most especially not trying to hide inside of Orthodox churches. The "continuing churches" all have severe polity problems, and I don't think any of them has managed to bring three bishops wih them, retired or not. The AMiA takes the "flying bishops" idea to a level that makes the American Orthodox polity issue seem rather tame.

The Anglican thing to do (it seems to me) is to stay where I am and do what I can to bring things back into line. In this I have accepted the idea that the visible church does not perfectly realize the church as a whole.

My biggest problem here, though, is that it seems to me that these attacks on Anglicanism are having the result of making me doubt that you, Serge, are representing Orthodoxy accurately. Everything else I've read indicates that Orthodox and mainstream Anglican views on trans/cons are extremely close, and even (in some respects) motivated by the same considerations. I've seen Episcopal converts to Orthodoxy argue differently, but considering how many of these used to be Anglo-Catholics it's impossible for me to take seriously the implication they are wont to make that they themselves took a low view of the sacrament.

And what other people are saying here, when I leave out the part where they tell me what I believe, is along the same lines. You seem to be the only one trying to push the Thomist theory as Orthodox, and everyone else I'm reading says this isn't so. And they say it isn't so along lines that parallel modern Anglican theologians doubting that it is so.

If it is there, as you claim, why not clarify it for us so we can see it?

Since I have to spell it out:

I'm going to put my own personal testimony under "Faith". I'm going to say it once, and I'm not going to entertain any commentary about it. (I might elaborate or clarify if asked and the queries are made in what I judge to be good faith.)

I don't want people to think the Anglican communion is evil or something like that, I am sure there are very nouble and good Christian ministers who teach sound doctrines and have a beautiful liturgy.

But we must not kid ourselves. The Church of England is "in communion" with the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia, A "Hussite" Church in Czechia, etc. The terms of this communion, as well as the inclussion of people who share the most contradictory ideas, is enough proof of the indifferentist character of the Anglican religion.

Given the fact that the most modernist Protestants and even some Eastern Christians in India have a place within the Church of England, it is not surprising that they would also offer a place for those who celebrate a traditional liturgy with all the external appereance of a Catholic or Orthodox liturgy.

In my opinion, AngloCatholics are just being cheated, it is not possible to be Catholic and Protestant at the same time, or holding Orthodox faith while being in communion with Protestants. i don't understand this.

In my opinion, AngloCatholics are just being cheated, it is not possible to be Catholic and Protestant at the same time, or holding Orthodox faith while being in communion with Protestants. i don't understand this.

"In communion with" happens at different levels. The C of E recognizes the apostolic succession of the Lutheran Church of Sweden because they took their bishops with them, as the C of E did. "In communion" should not be understood that priests/ministers can be freely exchanged between all these groups, as is the case within the Anglican communion (or within Orthodoxy).

As far as "Catholic" is concerned, the word doesn't in itself mean "exclusivist". I don't want to pretend to speak for an Anglo-Catholic position, but I would point out that back when I was a Presbyterian we believed in a Catholic church too.

If it is there, as you claim, why not clarify it for us so we can see it?

Since I have to spell it out:

I'm going to put my own personal testimony under "Faith". I'm going to say it once, and I'm not going to entertain any commentary about it. (I might elaborate or clarify if asked and the queries are made in what I judge to be good faith.)

Fair enough.

Sincerely, Keble, I really would like to know. I did not ask only in order to ridicule your beliefs.

Actually I rate Anglicans and Lutherans over most other Protestants because I feel that you all at least have "one foot in the door" when it comes to the Apostolic Tradition.

I would just like to see all of you open the door and come the rest of the way inside.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

I also am Episcopalian, Linus. I've been thinking hard about letting that be known (though some people probably have guessed.) I've pondered whether I should join in here, as I am loathe to have my answers of why I am taken as some form of attack or to have words put in my "mouth" that are not mine or to be put down for being one. I have read EO lists/newsgroups where people have said that if one is not EO one has nothing useful to say there or that non-EO are not Christian at all.

I ask you to think of how you felt going to the Board That Shall Not Be Named (its real name escapes me as I visited only once and never went back.) There people said awful things and misunderstandings and (from what I gather reading you and the others who went there) things that are not true about the RC's and EO's. Sometimes things have been said here about my Church that are have been misreportings, or not true or tarred all with the deeds of a few. I felt as you felt there, perhaps.

I must log now. |

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Perhaps you and Keble can answer my question, since I really am curious about what makes one decide to become and/or to remain an Anglican these days.

As I said, I have no desire to ridicule your beliefs, and I already know that you and Keble both have valuable things to say.

I will answer as best I can. I just hope that my perceptions and reasons will not be taken as an attack of any sort. They would not meant as such. Also, my words would be as I mean to speak, and I hope not move someone to offer "translations".

I'm not sure where would be the right section to do this. Here, or starting a new thread in this section (though "Free for All" seems a bit too wild for it) or elsewhere or if it is even On Topic for the Forum. I hope that one of the moderators can give some guidance.

I think it right that I not start this until you are not concentrating on the Holy Days of this weekend.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I think that this topic would be as good a place as any for your answer, since the question came up here. Of course, you can create a new topic or answer wherever you wish.

From your previous posts I guessed you were an Anglican well before this thread came up.

I won't offer "translations" of what you say about your faith. I may want to ask you questions about it, and I am especially curious about why someone would remain an Anglican when he could become either Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

As evidenced on my site, with its link to the Book of Common Prayer's daily psalter, its Anglo-Catholicism page and its quotations from Richard Hooker and Jeremy Taylor, I obviously have a pathological, implacable hatred of all Anglicans.

Quote

I will answer as best I can. I just hope that my perceptions and reasons will not be taken as an attack of any sort. They would not meant as such. Also, my words would be as I mean to speak, and I hope not move someone to offer "translations".

You're not doing the attacking and I know that. And since you aren't here to ridicule our belief in the Sacrament, cracking wise about divine atoms, nor writing similar passive-aggressive junk at our expense, there's no need to 'translate'.

I think that this topic would be as good a place as any for your answer, since the question came up here. Of course, you can create a new topic or answer wherever you wish.

From your previous posts I guessed you were an Anglican well before this thread came up.

I won't offer "translations" of what you say about your faith. I may want to ask you questions about it, and I am especially curious about why someone would remain an Anglican when he could become either Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

Though you had guessed, I thank you for your courtesy in not putting me to the question.

Do you want to know how I became Anglican/Episcopalian first? (I wasn't a "cradle" one.) This may need to become a new thread so as to avoid OT all over things.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis